netdev - Re: VRFs and the scalability of namespaces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACP96tR_c3-nVEGhswm1qt1WGXPNzyXA61FCxPutCTPNomjy+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:50:39 -0400
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini05@...il.com>
To:	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Cc:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VRFs and the scalability of namespaces

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
> On 09/29/2014 06:06 AM, David Ahern wrote:

>
> We have implemented support for at least most of this (excepting duplicate IPs)
> using routing tables, rules, and (optionally, xorp as the router).
>

My undertanding of multiple routing-tables/rules was that they
are closer in semantics to switch/router ACLs than to VRFs, eg.,
one big difference is that an interface can belong to exactly one
VRF at a time, which is not mandated by multiple routing-tables/rules.

Was I mistaken?

--Sowmini
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html